1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5319 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SRI. KANTHARAJU T.D

S/O DODDATHAMMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

RESIDING AT THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE

DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. C.A. AJITH, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE BY KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING

BENGALURU THROUGH

BADAVANAHALLI POLICE STATION

MADHUGIRI TALUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONDITIONS

IN SO FAR AS DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO FURNISH

2

RENEWABLE BANK GUARANTEE TO THE TUNE OF

RS.10,00,000/-

IMPOSED

BY

THE

IV

ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI

IN

THE

IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED

21.08.2020

IN

CRL.RP.NO.5004/2020 FOR RELEASE OF THE TRACTOR

AND TRAILER VEHICLE IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION COMING FOR ADMISSION ON THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioner/registered

owner of the vehicle under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for

imposing conditions to execute indemnity bond with a

surety and also furnishing renewable Bank Guarantee

for the purpose of releasing the vehicle which was

involved in transporting the sand which was seized

under

the

Mines

and

Minerals

(Regulation

and

Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 8the

MMRD Act9 for short) by the respondent. The petitioner

being filed an application for release of the vehicle

before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tumakuru,

sitting at Madhugiri, which came to be allowed on

3

21.08.2020 by imposing certain condition including

condition that petitioner shall execute indemnity bond

for Rs.5,00,000/- with a surety for the like sum and

also furnishing renewable Bank Guarantee to the tune

of Rs.10,00,000/- with other conditions, the petitioner

is before this Court challenging the aforesaid condition.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that this Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court had

considered the same aspect and relaxed the condition.

The condition which is imposed by the trial Court that

the petitioner shall execute indemnity bond with a

surety and also furnishing renewable Bank Guarantee

is dehors. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the petition

by relaxing the said condition.

3.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader objected the same and contended that as per

Rule 43(8) of the MMRD Rules, 1994 provides for

4

executing the Bank Guarantee doubling the amount for

release of the vehicle. In support of his contentions, he

relied upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in

the case of 8State of Karnataka vs. K. Mohammad

Haneef9, in Criminal Petition No.611/2021 dated

31.05.2021.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the

materials on record.

5.

Admittedly, the vehicle was involved in

transporting the sand under the MMRD Act but the FIR

was registered under Section 379 of IPC. FIR is

produced by the petitioner at Annexure-C to the petition

for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC

before the Badavanahalli Police Station, Madhugiri,

Tumalkuru

District

in

Crime

No.96/2019.

It

is

submitted that the vehicle was not seized by the Police

5

under the MMRD Act. Therefore, the question of

imposing condition under the MMRD Act or under the

Rule 43(8) of the MMRD Rules is not correct.

6.

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of 8Fayaz vs. Sub-Inspector of Police and

another9, in Criminal Petition No.490/2019 dated

06.02.2019 have relaxed the condition and ordered to

execute the indemnity bond. Relying upon the said

order, this Court in the case of 8K.L. Ramesh Vs. A. S.

Dayananda and another9, in Criminal Revision

Petition No.310/2019 dated 12